Tourism Management 33 (2012) 1245e1255

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Tourism Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

He just didnt seem to understand the banter: Bullying or simply establishing

social cohesion?
Matthew Alexander, Andrew MacLaren, Kevin OGorman*, Babak Taheri
Strathclyde Business School, University of Strathclyde, 199 Cathedral Street, Glasgow G4 0QU, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Within the professional kitchen bullying is reported as widespread, aggressive and related to a signicant
Received 26 April 2011 retention problem. This research explores negative behaviour in professional kitchens and its impact on
Accepted 4 November 2011 organisational commitment. A mixed methods approach is used employing a survey among chefs fol-
lowed by semi-structured interviews. An exploratory factor analysis examines the underlying constructs
Keywords: of bullying and job satisfaction and data are analysed through Partial Least Squares. Our research
Bullying
highlights that bullying behaviour is experienced most by younger, more junior chefs. However verbal
Socialisation
bullying, the form most strongly reported, has no effect on either satisfaction or commitment. Emergent
Communication
Inclusion
themes of communication and inclusion illustrate bullying behaviour to be a cohesive aspect of kitchen
Chefs culture. Our ndings suggest behavioural impacts, rather than bullying characteristics, must be
Teamwork considered within their context in order to establish whether or not they are actually damaging to an
industry.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Understanding the social behaviour of employees within the
hospitality and tourism industry could be fundamental to an
organisations success and negative behaviour (often perceived as
bullying) can have an impact on both job satisfaction and reten-
tion. This paper explores the effects of negative behavioural acts
on young chefs working in professional kitchens. Chefs play
a crucial role in the tourism industry (Cousins, OGorman, &
Stierand, 2010; Robinson & Beesley, 2009), with 25% of expendi-
ture linked to food and beverage (Correia, Moital, da Costa, &
Peres, 2008). Young chefs willingly put the objectives of the
group before their own, demonstrating dedication towards the
head chef and the team. This, at times, idealised image of the
devoted kitchen brigade pulling together to support the demands
of the chef masks a dark side of the sector where abuse, humili-
ation and violence are widely experienced and reported (Bloisi &
Hoel, 2008; Mathisen, Einarsen, & Mykletun, 2008; Murray-
Gibbons & Gibbons, 2007; Rowley & Purcell, 2001). A career in
the kitchen has been made attractive by media glamorisation
(Pratten, 2003a), however, Robinson and Beesley (2009) highlight
retention issues, a shortage of trained chefs and a dearth of
research offering explanations as to why.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 44 0141 553 6006.
E-mail addresses: kevin.ogorman@strath.ac.uk, kogorman@btinternet.com
(K. OGorman).
1. Work place bullying
Einarsen and Skogstad (1996, p. 187) dene and delimit work-
place bullying as being repeatedly subjected to negative acts,
however they go on to note:
.to be a victim of such bullying one must also feel inferiority in
defending oneself in the actual situation.This denition.is
not limited to a predened set of negative acts. It covers all
situations in which one or more persons over a period feel
subjected to negative acts that one cannot defend oneself
against. Even if a single serious episode, e.g. physical assault,
may be regarded as bullying and harassment, this denition
emphasizes repeated negative acts.Consequently, serious
conicts between parties of equal strength, or isolated episodes
of conict, are not considered as bullying.
This denition continues to be used to articulate bullying at
work in many studies (Hoel, Cooper, & Faragher, 2001; Hoel,
Faragher, & Cooper, 2004; Lutgen-Sandvik, Tracy, & Alberts, 2007;
Quine, 1999, 2001; Salin, 2003; Smith, Singer, Hoel, & Cooper,
2003). However, workplace bullying assumes a variety of forms
from deliberate and hurtful mistreatment causing stress (Park &
Kayatekin, 2000) to more subtle forms such as social under-
mining and exclusion (Aquino, Grover, Bradeld, & Allen, 1999;
Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002; Johansson, 2001; Mathias &
Teresa, 2006). Research has highlighted its impacts within in

0261-5177/$ e see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2011.11.001
1246 M. Alexander et al. / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 1245e1255
a range of industry contexts, for example, nurses in the UK (Quine,
2001; Zauhar, 2004), school teachers in China (McCormack,
Casimir, Djurkovic, & Yang, 2006), Indian call centre agents
(DCruz & Noronha, 2009), and restaurant staff in Norway
(Mathisen et al., 2008), all observe negative relationships between
bullying and job satisfaction. Furthermore, Parzefall and Salin
(2010) note that bullying has a detrimental effect on employee
health and well-being resulting in prolonged absenteeism and
commitment issues (Wycherley, 2005). Bullying also adversely
affects non-bullied colleagues who witness the practice (Adamson,
Pine, Van Steenhoven, & Kroupa, 2006; Lichtman, 2009; Simmons,
2006).
Workplace bullying is closely associated with socialisation and
symbolic practices to introduce, train, and integrate new recruits. In
the workplace, socialisation strengthens interaction, supports
adjustment and skill development (Haueter, Macan, & Winter, 2003;
Yang, 2008) and is composed of training and performance feedback
(Reichers, 1987). Furthermore, social integration into the internal
politics of the work environment (OReilly, Caldwell, & Barnett, 1989)
is often intense (Anderson, 1998; Bellou, 2007) but allows
newcomers to familiarise and establish themselves within their
surroundings (Hogg & Terry, 2000). Senior dominance is central to
these activities (Josefowitz & Gadon, 1989), particularly when rein-
forcing hierarchy (Keating et al., 2005), eliciting loyalty, trustwor-
thiness and commitment (SueEllen, 2006). These activities are often
used to assess compatibility and ability to integrate rather than just
being an entrance process (Cohen, 1964; Josefowitz & Gadon, 1989;
Schwartz & Merten, 1968; Zoja, 2000). The duration and harshness
is determined by group cohesiveness, individual t and newcomer
response (Josefowitz & Gadon, 1989) and can inuence the level of
bullying in the workplace (Reichers, 1987; Salin, 2003).
Socialisation and training are claimed to underpin commitment,
compliance, professional identity, group membership, character
building and bonding in both the army (Love, 2008; Pershing, 2006;
Wither, 2004) and paramilitary organisations like the police or re
service (Archer, 1999). These groups have high stress in common
and a subsequent need for cohesion and comradeship. Further-
more, socialisation can provide the feeling of acceptance and
afliation; however misuse and abuse could cause physical and
mental harm. Thompsons (1983) ethnographic study of beef-
packing assembly line workers discussed the notion of bullying,
displayed in terms of little sabotage acts among the workers, as
a necessary means to elevate employees work contentment
through a sense of meaning through play (Kidder, 2006, p. 31) in
order to provide a positive work identity. Therefore, there is a ne
line between building social bonds and simply bullying new
recruits, highlighted by Cousins (1981) who claims the nature of
junior doctors training and the long hours associated is both
dangerous and reckless. However, in a rejoinder Turkewitz and
Faust (1981) argue that they are an essential rite of passage to
become a fully-edged member of the group and describe them as
rewarding.
In the hospitality and tourism industry consideration of work-
place bullying lacks detail and fundamental understanding (Bentley
et al., 2012). Bentley et al. (2009) highlight lack of empirical
engagement at two levels: at an industry level there is little under-
standing of the prevalence of workplace bullying and at a micro,
interactional level there is poor articulation of how workplace
bullying is manifest. Bentley (2011, p. 1) addresses the sector in New
Zealand and invites further research into the extent of the work-
place bullying problem.and ways to effectively manage it. The
impact that workplace bullying can have on victims is substantial
according to Bentley (2011, p. 3). These may range from stress to
burnout and even depression (Hoel et al., 2001; Mikkelsen &
Einarsen, 2001). Signicantly, despite the range of denitions of
bullying in an organisational context and the focus on the nature of
behaviour, Bentley (2011) notes that bullying has as much to do with
the individuals perception and interpretation of specic behaviours
as it does with the conduct itself. Bloisi and Hoel (2008) highlight the
signicance of individual perceptions of behaviour, noting that in
kitchens in particular bullying may be rationalised as part of the
culture or simply humorous behaviour. Such behaviours are
accepted as part of the work and do not have the impacts they are
normally expected to have (Taylor, 1977). Bloisi and Hoel (2008) also
note a lack of evidence to support this notion, inviting deeper
investigation into the perceptions of recipients of bullying behav-
iours within particular organisational contexts.
1.1. Bullying and the kitchen environment
Contemporary kitchen culture is often attributed to the inu-
ence of Escofer whose military background was brought to bear
with the creation of a kitchen brigade at the Savoy hotel in 1890
(Taylor, 1996). However, as Hoel and Einarsen (2003, p. 12) report
on ndings of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work
the hospitality industry is a high risk sector with respect to
bullying and victimization. Many chefs have witnessed, experi-
enced, or even committed anti-social behaviour during their career
(Bloisi & Hoel, 2008; Johns & Menzel, 1999; Mathisen et al., 2008).
The media has given much attention to the phenomenon of
bullying and abusive work practices in kitchens, chefs, for example,
Bourdain (2001), Pierre-White & Steen (2007) describe numerous
accounts of it.
Cases of anti-social behaviour in kitchens range from routine
verbal abuse towards physical violence (Bloisi & Hoel, 2008; Johns
& Menzel, 1999). Middleton and Lafn (2000) rationalise such
behaviour with the demand of maximum quality output under high
pressure. There is a perception that giving and receiving abuse is
part of the socialisation process of the kitchen and creates hardi-
ness which is needed to function effectively in the high stress
environment of the kitchen (Bloisi & Hoel, 2008; Bourdain, 2001;
Johns & Menzel, 1999). As Bourdain (2001, p. 18) describes:
If you screwed up, you would get what was called the ten
minutes. In full view of the gawking public and quavering
comrades the offending souf cook would be called forward to
stand at attention while the intimidating old French Chef would
look down his Gallic shnozz and unload the most withering
barrage of scorn any of us had ever experienced.
Working in a kitchen brigade involves regimental and hierar-
chical order and a belief in uniformity, meaning and symbolism
(Bourdain, 2001; Fine, 1995). It is from this culture that the
aggressive behaviour and bullying is born. Surveying chefs, Murray-
Gibbons and Gibbons (2007, p. 32) discovered that excessive
workloads, feeling undervalued and communication issues were
common and bullying and threats of violence were present, these
are openly accepted by those within the profession as the norm
(Blanc, 2009).
1.2. Formation and training of chefs
For chefs, education in the workplace is central to the formation
process. Fine (1985, 1996a) argues that theoretical based curricula
do not give the necessary skills, and Balazs (2002) emphasises the
importance of expert training and mentorship. A mentor is
important in a chefs career (Hoel & Einarsen, 2003) to stimulate
and inspire (Hoel & Einarsen, 2003) and develop commitment to
the strict regime and ensure standards (Bernadette, 1998;
Middleton & Lafn, 2000). This style of training creates aware-
ness of the commitment required, sensitises to the culture and
 M. Alexander et al. / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 1245e1255
increases skills preparation and service (King, 1997; Rowley &
Purcell, 2001).
The voluntary acceptance of long hours and anti-social work
practices in kitchens characterises a devotion that many see as
necessary to gain appropriate levels of experience and skills (Bloisi &
Hoel, 2008; Johns & Menzel, 1999; Pratten, 2003a; Rowley & Purcell,
2001). However, Bloisi and Hoel (2008) point out that certain
popular television series have glamorised and sensationalised some
of the darker and more contentious aspects of kitchen culture,
encouraging chefs to actually identify with behaviours portrayed in
programmes such as Hells Kitchen; Marcus Wareing described his
kitchen as a torture chamber where the staff were scared sh**less
(Johnson, 2008). However, Chefs, who have survived the formation
process, illustrate that, despite fearsome reputations, top chefs
enjoy strong loyalty from employees (Bloisi & Hoel, 2008) whilst
constructing a clear group identity through belonging to the team.
Practising bullying in various different situations, displaying a range
of different social or anti-social behaviours does not necessarily
need to mean harm (Crawford, 1999; Hoel et al., 2004). Sometimes it
may be used in a joking manner imitating a particular social conduct
put into a different context (Lutgen-Sandvik, 2008). This behaviour
tends to be easily accepted and tolerated by both new and estab-
lished members of a community (Munthe, 1989).
Stress is a predominate factor in the professional kitchen (Johns
& Menzel, 1999; Mathisen et al., 2008; Murray-Gibbons & Gibbons,
2007; Pratten, 2003b; Pratten & OLeary, 2007), which is commonly
described as low class work (Fine, 1996b), an undervalued industry
(Gabriel, 1988) or even as stigmatised with a dirty work identity
(Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999). Murray-Gibbons and Gibbons (2007)
observe that occupational stress in the culinary profession is
markedly higher than in most professions due to excessive work-
loads, isolation, lack of communication, and feeling undervalued.
Furthermore, stress is also a principal antecedent of bullying
behaviour usually instigated by senior chefs (Bloisi & Hoel, 2008;
Hoel & Einarsen, 2003). Problems associated with stress should
also be viewed alongside an apparent crisis in the sector where
there is a serious shortage of chefs (Pratten & OLeary, 2007;
Robinson & Barron, 2007), with 50% of trainees leaving before the
end of their apprenticeship (Robinson & Beesley, 2009). The
glamorisation of the chef role may have resulted in young people
entering an industry unaware of the level of dedication required
(Pratten, 2003a, p. 237). Indeed, a fraction of all chefs commencing
education and training will eventually proceed to practise cooking
as a mastery. A self-perpetuating pattern emerges as a result of
poor retention and subsequent increased pressure on those that
remain (Pratten & OLeary, 2007).
However, there is evidence that job satisfaction within the
kitchen environment is high in spite of the bullying culture. Martin
(2004) observes that hospitality employees have higher than
average satisfaction and suggest that there are two factors that can
account for this, namely group cohesion and the nature of hospitality
work itself where work is viewed as an end in itself and job satis-
faction is perceived as immediate. Rose (2003) highlights the relative
satisfaction of a vast range of job types, including ve from the
hospitality sector. Of these ve job types chefs and cooks had the
highest satisfaction score (55% above the median satisfaction score in
the sample) beating all other hospitality roles including managers.
This higher than average satisfaction is supported in part by Bloisi
and Hoel (2008) who note that Gordon Ramsays employees
display strong loyalty towards him despite his fearsome reputation
even following him when he moves to a new restaurant; a survey of
167 sous-chefs from across the country by Jobsstore.co.uk showed
72% of chefs would be happy to put up with Ramsays temper in
order to learn from him (Johnson, 2008). Jason Atherton (a Ramsay
protg) describes being beaten to a pulp in a kitchen but the
1247
restaurant I was working in had a three-year waiting list to get in, so I
wasnt going to give up. I asked if I could change my jacket d it was
hanging off my back. But it was No, nish f***ing service. I came
home with bruises all over my chest. But by the age of 24, he was
head chef himself (Johnson, 2008).
It may therefore be the case that rather than just cause dissat-
isfaction and turnover amongst employees, bullying, or what is
perceived as bullying in most contexts, within the kitchen envi-
ronment can actually perform an important motivational role.
Kitchen culture seems to be accepted by subordinates as a conse-
quence of the drive and ambition of, and their loyalty and
commitment to, the head chef. Chefs display a sense of belonging
within the kitchen culture that regards an abusive and victimising
attitude as a central part of a chefs identity. Furthermore, there can
be big rewards for those who put up with stress. Perhaps in
a romantic sense these rewards relate to notions of a heros
journey, where individuals who have endured particularly gruel-
ling ordeals on the path to success become idolised gures. Those
that cannot cope are likely to be marginalised and add to the
sectors retention problem. We hypothesise that verbal abuse is
likely to be used as a socialisation method and is more likely to be
experienced by younger and less experienced chefs (H1). The
literature suggests that abusive behaviour may not be perceived as
bullying in the kitchen environment (Bloisi & Hoel, 2008; Taylor,
1977) and, as a result, will not affect job satisfaction or organisa-
tional commitment. However, the literature review also clearly
indicates that occupational stress in the kitchen context is higher
and that this might relate to issues of isolation, a lack of commu-
nication and feeling undervalued (Bloisi & Hoel, 2008; Hoel &
Einarsen, 2003). It was also hypothesised that bullying is
perceived differently in the kitchen but will still affect both job
satisfaction and organisational commitment, as illustrated in Fig. 1.
2. Methodology
We adopted a mixed methods, sequential explanatory design,
approach (Creswell, 2009; Panyik, Costa, & Rtz, 2011; Teddlie &
Tashakkori, 2009); where emphasis is placed on an initial quanti-
tative phase of data collection and a second, qualitative phase to
explain and interpret results. A survey explored the impacts of
bullying on job satisfaction and organisational commitment using
a Partial Least Squares (PLS) model, followed by a series of semi-
structured interviews with chefs.
2.1. Quantitative phase
A non-probability, purposive sampling approach was adopted
and surveys were hand-delivered (along with reply paid envelopes)
to 500 chefs in part or full-time employment across Scotland; 164
(33%) were returned. The average age of respondents was 32 and
87% of the sample were male. The average number of years spent in
their current job was 6 and average career length was 12. To ensure
content validity of our survey we initially conducted a literature
review to identify appropriate measures, employing existing scales
for the main constructs. The questionnaire contained 77 items sub-
divided into four sections: negative acts experienced in the
Fig. 1. Initial model and hypotheses.
1248 M. Alexander et al. / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 1245e1255

workplace; job satisfaction; organisational commitment, and
demographic variables. The survey was independently reviewed to
ensure suitability and readability and a pilot test among 50 tourism
employees allowed renement of the instrument. To measure
bullying we used a 22 item reective scale based on Einarsen and
Rakness (1997) Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ), also used in
other questionnaires on workplace bullying (Mathisen et al., 2008;
McCormack et al., 2006; Takaki et al., 2009). The scale measures
exposure to specic negative acts in the workplace typical of
bullying without explicitly being labelled as such, this was seen as
important as our surveys would be completed by chefs within their
workplace and individuals may have reservations about labelling
themselves as victims. Responses are made to each variable on
a seven point Likert scale with never e frequently as anchors. To
measure job satisfaction we used a 36 item reective scale based on
Spectors (1985) Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS). The survey evaluates
dimensions which relate to overall satisfaction, also used in similar
studies (Blau, 1999; Hall & Dornan, 1990; Spector, 1997). The third
section of the questionnaire used a 15 item scale to measure
organisational commitment using a scale created by Porter and
Smith (1970) widely used to measure commitment to an organi-
sation (Cullen, Johnson, & Sakano, 1995; Schappe, 1998). Both job
satisfaction and commitment were measured using seven point
Likert scales with totally disagree-totally agree as anchors.
2.2. Qualitative phase
The bullying effects identied by our model were explored in
semi-structured interviews with chefs. A purposeful criterion-based
sample design was chosen (OGorman & Gillespie, 2010) to allow
the selection of interviewees that can inform an understanding of
the research problem and central phenomenon in the study
(Creswell, 2007, p. 125). In total 12 new (<5 years experience) and
eight more experienced chefs (>5 years experience) were inter-
viewed either at their place of work or at a location agreed with the
interviewee; all participants were guaranteed anonymity. Given the
explanatory research design, the interviews focused on exploring
themes from the model. Each interview started with a brief
introduction of the project which was described as exploring social
behaviour and the culture of the kitchen, the aim being not to
explicitly signpost bullying. Participants were asked to discuss their
experiences in the kitchen relating to the four factors for example,
how much verbal abuse occurs in the kitchen on a normal day? or
what happens in the kitchen when an individual doesnt t in?
Each interview was recorded (interviews lasted on average 35 min)
analysed and coded independently by two researchers and subse-
quently agreed by the team. Data from the interviews was analysed
using a thematic analysis approach, comparing the data with existing
literature (Boyatzis, 1998).
3. Findings and discussion
3.1. Determining kitchen bullying factors
Given our aim to explore the extent to which some negative acts
are actually perceived as bullying in the kitchen, exploratory factor
analysis was used to determine if an alternative factor structure
might be present. Table 1 displays the factor loadings and reliability
of the analysis using heuristics from Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson
(2010). The analysis produced four factors from 21 items using var-
imax rotation which together explained 68.82% of the variance. The
four factors were labelled psychological bullying, Verbal
Bullying, Gender/Sex Bullying and Devaluing.
For our job satisfaction scale the factor loadings and reliability
data are presented in Table 2. 36 Items from the scale were retained
after a principal component analysis with orthogonal (varimax)
rotation (Tabachnik & Fidell, 2007). The analysis produced eight
factors which explained 75.98% of the variance. The eight factors
were named as Rewards, Satisfaction with supervisor, Promo-
tion prospects, Organisational feelings, Working Culture, Co-
workers, Stress and pressure and Bureaucracy. The reliability
coefcients of seven of the eight were greater than the recom-
mended .60 (Robinson, 1991), factor 8 was removed from subse-
quent analysis. Analysis of the organisational commitment scale
indicated unidimensionality and accounted for 77.83% of the total
variance with high internal consistency (a .98).

Table 1
Results of principal component analysis with varimax rotation for bullying.

Item Mean Factor Factor and overall mean Eigenvalue % Variance Cronbach
loading alpha
Social exclusion from co-workers or work group activities 1.41 .58 Factor 1: psychological 9.69 44.03 .90
Hint or signals from others that you should quit your job 1.32 .76
Physical abuse or threats of physical abuse 1.51 .51
Silence or hostility as a response to your questions or attempts 1.65 .76
at conversations
Neglect of your opinions or views 1.72 .58
Funny surprises 2.34 .58
Devaluing of your rights and opinions with reference to your age 1.38 .73
Exploitation at work, such as private errands 1.25 .65
Reactions from others because you work too hard 1.38 .68

Ridicule or insulting teasing 2.18 .78 Factor 2: verbal 2.54 11.56 .87
Gossip or rumours about you 1.58 .51
Repeated offensive remarks about you or your private life 1.82 .64
Verbal abuse 2.31 .77
Repeated reminders about your blunders 2.66 .68

Unwanted sexual advances 1.13 .84 Factor 3: gender/sex 1.70 7.73 .86
Unwanted sexual attention 1.12 .92
Offending telephone calls or written messages 1.06 .61
Devaluing of your rights and opinions with reference to your gender 1.18 .89

Ordered to do work below your pay grade 1.69 .82 Factor 4: devaluing 1.21 5.49 .80
Being deprived of responsibility or work tasks 1.88 .85
Devaluing of your work and efforts 1.93 .56

KMO .872; Bartletts Test p < .000.

 M. Alexander et al. / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 1245e1255 1249

Table 2
Results of principal component analysis with varimax rotation for job satisfaction.

Item Mean Factor Factor and overall mean Eigenvalue % Variance Cronbach
loading alpha
I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work I do 4.74 .824 Factor 1: rewards 14.32 39.77 .95
I am not satised with the benets I receive 4.61 .845
Raises are too few and far between 4.38 .828
The benets we receive are as good as most other organisations offer 4.42 .649
I like doing the things I do at work 5.29 .472
I feel unappreciated by the organisations when I think about 4.70 .845
what they pay me
People get ahead as fast here as they do in other places 4.51 .515
The benet package we have is equitable 4.46 .875
There are few rewards for those who work here 4.58 .834
I feel a sense of pride in doing my job 5.53 .546
There are benets we do not have which we should have 4.44 .823
I dont feel my efforts are rewarded the way they should be 4.57 .593

My supervisor is quite competent in doing his/her job 5.21 .697 Factor 2: supervisor 4.05 11.26 .91
When I do a good job, I receive the recognition for it that I should 5.04 .531 /appraisal
Communications seem good within this community 5.23 .584
My supervisor is unfair to me 5.12 .795
I do not feel that the work I do is appreciated 4.95 .542
My supervisor shows to little interest in the feeling of subordinates 4.82 .699
I like my supervisor 5.06 .780
My job is enjoyable 5.66 .467

There is really too little chance for promotion in my job 4.82 .842 Factor 3: promotion 2.54 7.05 .90
Those who do well on the job stand a fair chance of being promoted 4.87 .768
I feel satised with my chances for salary increases 4.55 .664
I am satised with my chances for promotion 4.48 .801

The goals of this organisation are not clear to me 6.07 .770 Factor 4: organisational feeling 1.75 4.87 .82
I feel that I do not know what is going on with the organisation 6.05 .828

Many of our rules and procedures make doing a good job difcult 5.18 .680 Factor 5: working culture 1.55 4.29 .76
I like the people I work with 5.59 .682
I sometimes feel my job is meaningless 5.65 .482

I nd I have to work harder at my job because of incompetence of 5.29 .790 Factor 6: co-workers 1.10 3.05 .65
people I work with
I enjoy my co-workers company 5.52 .614

I have too much to do at work 4.20 .774 Factor 7: stress and pressure 1.04 2.89 .60
There is too much bickering and ghting at work 5.23 .460
Work assignments are not fully explained 6.43 .536

My efforts to do a good job are seldom blocked by red tape 5.28 .570 Factor 8 1.01 2.82 .48
I have too much paperwork 6.77 .809

KMO .897; Bartletts p < .000.

3.2. Bullying effects on young chefs: ANOVA and t-tests a social integration role (Salin, 2003), determining their ability to
cope with the environment and strengthening workplace func-
To test the rst hypothesis we created a new ordinal variable in tionality (Haueter et al., 2003; Yang, 2008). On that basis it is likely
SPSS using age range. This was then subject to a series of one-way that this form of activity is not perceived as bullying by those who
ANOVA tests using the four bullying factors identied in the
previous section. Table 3 displays the results of the test which
Table 3
indicate signicant differences between groups for all four bullying Effects of bullying constructs by respondent age.
factors. In all cases levels of bullying are higher in the <25 category
Bullying measure N Mean SD F (3,160) p
with the largest difference between age group found in the
Psychological <25 36 2.21 .86 24.97 .000
psychological and verbal bullying factors conrming the rst
25e34 73 1.41 .42
hypothesis. 35e44 31 1.20 .21
We also conducted a series of independent t-tests using 45 24 1.42 .44
a median split of length of time in current post as a grouping
Verbal <25 36 2.81 .84 21.37 .000
variable. The results (Table 4) again highlight a signicant differ- 25e34 73 2.03 .57
ence between individuals who have been employed for less than or 35e44 31 1.62 .49
equal to ve years and those who had been employed for longer. 45 24 1.90 .63
Once again, signicant differences were strongest for psychological Gender/sex <25 36 1.33 .73 4.50 .000
and verbal bullying factors. 25e34 73 1.09 .32
Our ndings conrm that experiences of verbal abuse are 35e44 31 1.00 .04
45 24 1.03 .08
particularly strong amongst younger and less experienced chefs;
those with less than ve years of employment showed higher mean Devaluing <25 36 2.22 .76 9.02 .000
scores across all four bullying factors and strongest for verbal forms. 25e34 73 1.90 .61
35e44 31 1.49 .68
This suggests a link between bullying and workplace socialisation 45 24 1.47 .70
(Anderson, 1998; Bellou, 2007), for younger chefs bullying plays
1250 M. Alexander et al. / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 1245e1255

Table 4 measures are problematic and/or the emphasis is more on

Effects of bullying constructs by length of time in current job. exploration than conrmation (Hair et al., 2010, p. 777). The
Bullying measure N Mean SD Two-tailed t (1,162) p minimum number of observations ranges from 30 to 100 cases;
Psychological 5 88 1.31 .36 5.25 .000 however a minimum sample size of 150 is considered customary
<5 76 1.82 .77 in the analysis of PLS, because it does not require distributional
Verbal 5 88 1.82 .60 5.59 .000 assumptions about the underlying data (Chin, 2010; Hutchinson
<5 76 2.43 .77 et al., 2009; Pike, Murdy, & Lings, 2011; Reinatz, Haenlein, &
Henseler, 2009). PLS estimates structural path coefcients, R2
Gender/sex 5 88 1.03 .19 2.71 .000
<5 76 1.22 .57 and Q2 using 500 randomly generated sub-samples (Gotz et al.,
2010). Goodness of t (GoF) measures were also calculated
Devaluing 5 88 1.66 .68 3.23 .000
<5 76 2.02 .72
using procedures from Tenenhaus, Vinzi, Chatelin, and Lauro
(2005) and Chin (2010). The exploratory factor analysis report
produced 12 new latent variables for two constructs: bullying
and job satisfaction. PLS was used to nd the inter-relationships
between these new latent variables and organisational commit-
perpetrate the behaviour or the recipients but essential to ensure
ment. In order to assess the constructs, conrmatory factor
that new recruits are able to stand up to the pressure of the
analysis was employed using PLS.
professional kitchen.
We analysed composite reliability, convergent validity and
discriminant validity of all factors following standard procedure
3.3. The effects of bullying in the kitchen from the literature; composite reliability scores range from .79 to
.98 above the recommended cut off of .7 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
To analyse the data we used Partial Least Squares (PLS). Unlike Convergent validity was assessed using average variance extracted
co-variance based structural equation modelling (e.g. AMOS), (AVE) and our factors scored between .58 and .78 once again
which uses the structure of latent variables, PLS is a component meeting the .5 threshold suggested (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Peter,
based approach suitable for both predictive applications and 1981) (Table 5). Finally, discriminant validity of the constructs was
theory building (Gotz, Kerstin, & Krafft, 2010). PLS is appropriate assessed using factor loadings and cross-loadings i.e. discriminant
for different levels of data. Also, the PLS model is useful when the validity of reective indicators measured by comparing the square
measurement is poor (Camarero, Garrido, & Vicente, 2010; Gotz root of AVE (shown on the diagonal with inter-construct correla-
et al., 2010; Hair et al., 2010; Henseler, Ringle, & Sinkovics, tions in Table 6) (Chin, 2010). In short, all appear to support the
2009; Hutchinson, Lai, & Wang, 2009), particularly when reliability and validity of the scales.

Table 5
Assessment of the measurement model.

Construct Item loading Composite AVE

reliability
.93 .59
Psychological bullying Social exclusion from co-workers or work group activities .713**
Hint or signals from others that you should quit your job .774***
Physical abuse or threats of physical abuse .759***
Silence or hostility as a response to your questions or attempts at conversations .825***
Neglect of your opinions or views .796***
Funny surprises .706***
Devaluing of your rights and opinions with reference to your age .773***
Exploitation at work, such as private errands .805***
Reactions from others because you work too hard .790***

.92 .74
Sexual bullying Unwanted sexual advances .837***
Unwanted sexual attention .951***
Offending telephone calls or written messages .739***
Devaluing of your rights and opinions with reference to your gender .898***

.89 .72
Devaluing Ordered to do work below your pay grade .821***
Being deprived of responsibility or work tasks .914***
Devaluing of your work and efforts .812***

.95 .64
JBS1 rewards I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work I do .813***
I am not satised with the benets I receive .878***
Raises are too few and far between .876***
The benets we receive are as good as most other organisations offer .686**
I like doing the things I do at work .775***
I feel unappreciated by the organisations when I think about what they pay me .846***
People get ahead as fast here as they do in other places .701***
The benet package we have is equitable .848***
There are few rewards for those who work here .858***
I feel a sense of pride in doing my job .727***
There are benets we do not have which we should have .862***
I dont feel my efforts are rewarded the way they should be .763***
 M. Alexander et al. / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 1245e1255 1251

Table 5 (continued )

Construct Item loading Composite AVE

reliability
.92 .62
JBS2 supervisor/appraisal My supervisor is quite competent in doing his/her job .739***
When I do a good job, I receive the recognition for it that I should .766***
Communications seem good within this community .754***
My supervisor is unfair to me .829***
I do not feel that the work I do is appreciated .830***
My supervisor shows to little interest in the feeling of subordinates .721***
I like my supervisor .865***
My job is enjoyable .793***

.93 .76
JBS3 promotion There is really too little chance for promotion in my job .861***
Those who do well on the job stand a fair chance of being promoted .894***
I feel satised with my chances for salary increases .815***
I am satised with my chances for promotion .922***

.87 .68
JBS5 working culture Many of our rules and procedures make doing a good job difcult .819***
I like the people I work with .791***
I sometimes feel my job is meaningless .869***

.79 .58
JBS7 stress & pressure I have too much to do at work .729***
There is too much bickering and ghting at work .747***
Work assignments are not fully explained .849***

Organisational commitment
.98 .78
I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that .880***
normally expected in order to help this organisation
be successful
I talk up this organisation to my friends as a great .924***
organisation to work for
I feel very little loyalty to this organisation .891***
I would accept almost any type of job assignment in .863***
order to keep working for this organisation
I nd that my values and the organisations values are .876***
very similar
I am proud to tell people I am part of this organisation .881***
I could just as well be working for a different organisation .919***
as long as the type of work was similar
This organisation really inspires the very best in me in .856***
the way of job performance
It would take very little change in my present circumstances .890***
to cause me to leave this organisation
I am extremely glad that I chose the organisation to work for, .925***
over others I was considering at the time I joined
Theres not too much to be gained by sticking with this .874***
organisation indenitely
Often, I nd it difcult to agree with the organisations policies .707**
on important matters relating to is employers
I really care about the fate of this organisation .877***
For me this is the best of all possible organisations for which to work .935***
Deciding to work for this organisation was a denite mistake .890***

Non-standardised coefcients; *p < .10; **p < .05; ***p < .01; n.a. Not applicable.

To examine the hypotheses, the structural model (Fig. 2) was relevance) (Chin, 2010). The modelled constructs explain 73% of the
simultaneously tested within SmartPLS (Ringle, Wende, & Becker, variance in organisational commitment, 22% of the variance in job
2005). All values of the Q2 are positive which conrms the satisfaction (rewards), 26% of the variance in job satisfaction
models predictive relevance (i.e. if Q2 > 0 the model has predictive (supervisor/appraisal), 25% of variance in job satisfaction (working

Table 6
Latent variables correlation matrix (discriminate validity).

Psychological Sexual Devaluing Rewards Supervisor Promotion Working culture Stress Organisational
bullying bullying commitment
Psychological bullying .76
Sexual bullying .41 .86
Devaluing .57 .28 .84
Rewards .43 .19 .39 .80
Supervisor .41 .25 .51 .62 .78
Promotion .10 .11 .16 .61 .56 .87
Working culture .35 .30 .27 .48 .71 .57 .82
Stress .60 .47 .49 .27 .54 .16 .37 .70
Organisational commitment .27 .22 .32 .69 .72 .76 .76 .32 .88
1252 M. Alexander et al. / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 1245e1255
culture) and 52% of variance in job satisfaction (stress & pressure);
the overall GoF is .55. To simplify the model only signicant rela-
tionships are displayed.
A negative relationship between bullying and satisfaction is
a dominant theme in the literature (DCruz & Noronha, 2009; Lewis
& Gunn, 2007; Mathisen et al., 2008) and our research supports this
to an extent with signicant negative relationships identied
between three out of four bullying factors and aspects of job satis-
faction. Psychological bullying had strong negative effects on three
satisfaction areas with stress and pressure being the strongest
negative relationship (.601), conrming the negative effect of
subtler forms of social undermining (Aquino et al., 1999; Duffy et al.,
2002) that were identied within the literature review. More
signicant however is the lack of any relationship between verbal
bullying and job satisfaction or organisational commitment. This
challenges Murray-Gibbons and Gibbons (2007) who highlight
problems with bullying and aggressive behaviour and supports other
authors who have suggested that this is accepted (Bloisi & Hoel,
2008) and expected (Bentley et al., 2012; Johns & Menzel, 1999).
Crucially, this result suggests that verbal abuse is unlikely to be
perceived as bullying within the kitchen environment.
Our model shows no signicant direct effects between bullying
and organisational commitment, contrary to existing studies
(Einarsen & Mikkelsen, 2003; Hoel & Einarsen, 2003; Parzefall &
Salin, 2010). Furthermore, satisfaction with supervisor and
rewards mediates the relationship between devaluing and
psychological bullying and commitment. There is strong loyalty
between a group of chefs and their leader (Bloisi & Hoel, 2008),
therefore if a leader is guilty of bullying (devaluing and psycho-
logical) then a negative effect on commitment should be expected.
Fig. 2. Structural model. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. GoF .55.
3.4. Analysis of qualitative data: semi-structured interview
As indicated within the methodology section, our mixed
methods approach was sequential and explanatory. In order to
make more sense of them results of our structural model were
discussed in a series of informal, semi-structured interviews.
Analysis of the interview data revealed two dominant themes of
communication and inclusion which related to both verbal and
psychological forms of bullying.
3.5. Communication
The language associated with bullying emerges as the very
fabric of kitchen communication and group cohesion. Chefs
communicate in a manner that elicits urgency, We need to get the
message across in as few words as possible and fast. Aggressive
and defamatory language is considered to be the most efcient way
of getting the message across,
they know that if I say get that f****n sh plated you c*** then
I need it done faster than now, and that is clearer than saying,
look were really under pressure so could you stop what youre
doing and plate that sh.
The language is personally targeted yet so central to the
respondents base of communication that, in explaining its function,
the potential for it to do harm is not acknowledged. A breakdown in
the banter results in a breakdown in communication too, When
things are good the insults are ying back and forward, about the
football team you support, your sex life, everything. When things are
bad the kitchen can be a horribly silent place. Here, both the efcacy
 M. Alexander et al. / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 1245e1255
of the usual kitchen rhetoric and its symbolism of the atmosphere
allude to just how integral the banter is to a happy team.
Group games act as facilitators for group cohesion and raise
spirits; aggression, violence and humiliation facilitate the banter
that allows chefs to bond and be sure that everyone is capable of
dealing with the pressures of service.
We have this game where anyone can shout jump and the
victim of the day has to jump. It just gets everyone chatting and
laughing and its actually pretty cool to get victim and you see
how quickly you can react to the shouts.
Although an individual is victimised in this example, the group
subscribes to the underpinning humour and the victim is raised to
a privileged status.
3.6. Inclusion
Bullying of a psychological nature appeared when individuals
who did not t were isolated. In contrast to the ostensible bullying in
the jumping game that represents a complete reversal in dynamics
where the victim is being ritually afrmed by the others. Acknowl-
edgement of aggressive language and behaviour is framed in a way
that delineates between in the kitchen and out of the kitchen, I
say to my guys, I know I can be a total bastard during service but we
need that to get us through service and they know its not personal.
We sit down at the end of the night and have a beer and were all
pals. In particular, service is a time where implicitly anything goes.
Chefs need to know people are part of the team and capable of
pulling their weight; tting-in is essential. Just as the jumping
game saw a reversal in the dynamic between the bullies and the
victim, aggressive language and behaviour actually ceases when
people stop being accepted,
We had this one guy that no one got on with, he just didnt
seem to understand the banter and he was always shifty-like-
.looking over his shoulder and that. We just sort of stopped
talking to him the way we talked to each other, I guess to be
honest we became much nicer to him.he lasted another week.
Bullying behaviour is integral to being in the team. The afr-
mation that is sought from engaging in this banter serves to form
a cohesive group. Therefore, coping with the banter and other
behaviour achieves acceptance and provides symbolic reassurance
that the team will not be let down.
Experienced chefs, would not necessarily recognise such
behaviour as bullying. It seems that they perceive it as playing
similar role to hazing within the medical profession and the armed
forces (Feldman, 1977; Josefowitz & Gadon, 1989; Pershing, 2006;
Schwartz & Merten, 1968; Turkewitz & Faust, 1981). Kitchen
socialisation is more than just initiation, or a simple entrance test
(Cohen, 1964; Zoja, 2000), senior chefs appear to perceive it to be
core to an individuals ability to function and is part of a career-long
culture. Group socialisation can be robust, and often appear cruel,
but nevertheless it is required for individual acceptance as it is
perceived to guarantee success for the entire team.
4. Conclusions
What may be considered bullying in other work environments
is, within the kitchen, an accepted part of the culture. Bullying,
particularly its verbal forms, is perceived to be necessary and is
legitimised to ensure the functionality of the team and its ability to
perform at the highest level in a stressful environment. The notion
that stress in the kitchen acts as a catalyst for abusive behaviour
(Hoel & Einarsen, 2003; Murray-Gibbons & Gibbons, 2007) is not
1253
disputed by this paper but the potential for this behaviour to
negatively impact job satisfaction and commitment are. The
bullying factors that have the strongest effect on satisfaction and
subsequently commitment to the organisation are those related to
social exclusion.
Our results challenge the prevailing discourse relating to
bullying in two ways. Previous research within the context of
professional kitchens uses bullying terminology too liberally in
dening typical behaviour. Our ndings illustrate that some
kitchen behaviour, despite its apparent extremeness, is a facilitator
of cohesive, highly functioning teams. This informs our second
reference to the literature which tries to objectively dene bullying
behaviour. Organisational context prevails as a signicant factor in
this research and points to a need to more closely consider impacts
rather than ostensible behaviours when dening what is and is not
bullying behaviour. Although the literature denes some of the
behaviours highlighted in this study as bullying, the chefs use such
behaviour to: effectively get the job done; improve communica-
tion; ensure morale; and ultimately form a cohesive team.
Furthermore, they alluded to the potentially inhibiting effect of
more conventional communication and formation techniques.
Despite evidence from our model of the (non) effect of verbal
bullying these results must also be considered with acknowledge
of a relatively small sample of Scottish chefs. The results, while
intriguing, need consideration across a wider range of samples,
countries and cultures. Research by Mathisen et al. (2008) suggest
that bullying may be strongly affected by culture so we would
welcome research to explore our 4 factor model in other contexts.
Contexts previously studied in other research concern similar
environments to this study, where the culture is intimately wedded to
lifestyle: for example in the military or emergency services, which
often involve unconventional working hours, high stress and
specialist skills. With kitchens often operating as enigmatic
appendages to larger businesses such as hotels, resorts, ships and
countless others, they are very easy to ignore as bubbles that self-
manage. The processes that develop to facilitate communication,
discipline, order, and ultimately effectiveness, are part of the very
fabric of kitchen culture. The chefs that therefore subscribe to kitchen
culture as their way of life are conditioned to be incapable of objec-
tively scrutinising the behaviour that takes place thus the impact of
behaviour that the literature denes as bullying is both accepted and
expected by many. Those that do not accept it are most likely
rationalised by others as not having the right mentality to make it as
a chef anyway, but not it would seem as victims of bullying.
The implications for the industry in relation to these points
concern the apparent decit in young chefs staying in the industry.
The deeply engrained and self-perpetuating nature of the behav-
iours studied here and the relative isolation of kitchens as micro-
worlds would make attempting to address such issues chal-
lenging and potentially more damaging than doing nothing at all.
However, doing nothing at all would represent a symbolic
endorsement of behaviour that in other contexts would be unac-
ceptable at best. Yet, this is a relatively unique and extreme context.
The marriage of practicality and art make being a chef arguably
a calling to the extent that attempting to revolutionise the abusive
behaviour would not necessarily open doors to a ood of new
young chefs previously inhibited by an oppressive working climate.
In principle this study has underlined the curious and idiosyncratic
world of kitchens and developed the notion that bullying is dened
as much by the interpretation of behaviour as it is by the eliciting of
it. The behaviours most typically experienced are not perceived as
bullying, indeed they are welcomed and considered necessary. We
therefore propose that the stigma of bullying as a driver of poor
retention in the industry is, at the very least, clouding a more
complex issue.
1254 M. Alexander et al. / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 1245e1255
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to express their sincere thanks to Mark Hyson
for his contribution to the data collection process.
References
Adamson, G., Pine, J., Van Steenhoven, T., & Kroupa, J. (2006). How storytelling can
drive strategic change. Strategy & Leadership, 34(1), 36e41.
Anderson, N. (1998). Changes in newcomers psychological contracts during orga-
nizational socialization: a study of recruits entering the British Army. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 19, 745e767.
Aquino, K., Grover, S. L., Bradeld, M., & Allen, D. G. (1999). The effects of negative
affectivity, hierarchical status, and self-determination on workplace victimiza-
tion. Academy of Management Journal, 42(3), 260e272.
Archer, D. (1999). Exploring bullying culture in the para-military organisation.
International Journal of Manpower, 20(1/2), 94e105.
Ashforth, B. E., & Kreiner, G. E. (1999). How can you do it?: dirty work and the
challenge of constructing a positive identity. The Academy of Management
Review, 24(3), 413e434.
Balazs, K. (2002). Take one entrepreneur: the recipe for success of Frances great
chefs. European Management Journal, 20(3), 247e259.
Bellou, V. (2007). Psychological contract assessment after a major organizational
change. Employee Relations, 29(1), 68e88.
Bentley, T., Catley, B., Cooper-Thomas, H., Gardner, D., ODriscoll, M. P., Dale, A., et al.
(2012). Perceptions of workplace bullying in the New Zealand travel industry:
prevalence and management strategies. Tourism Management, 33(2), 351e360.
Bentley, T., Catley, B., Gardner, D., ODriscoll, M., Trenberth, L., & Cooper-Thomas, H.
(2009). Perspectives on bullying in the New Zealand health and hospitality
sectors. Journal of Occupational Health and Safety Australia and New Zealand,
25(5), 363e373.
Bernadette, S. (1998). Workplace violence in the UK hospitality industry: impacts
and recommendations. Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, 4(4),
337e347.
Blanc, R. (2009). A taste of my life: One mans hunger for perfection. London: Corgi
Books.
Blau, G. (1999). Testing the longitudinal impact of work variables and performance
appraisal satisfaction on subsequent overall job satisfaction. Human Relations,
52(8), 1099e1113.
Bloisi, W., & Hoel, H. (2008). Abusive work practices and bullying among chefs:
a review of the literature. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(4),
649e656.
Bourdain, A. (2001). Kitchen condential: Adventures in the culinary underbelly.
London: Harper Perennial.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and
code development. London: Sage.
Camarero, C., Garrido, M. J., & Vicente, E. (2010). Components of art exhibition brand
equity for internal and external visitors. Tourism Management, 31(4), 495e504.
Chin, W. W. (2010). How to write up and report PLS analyses. In V. Esposito Vinzi,
W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of partial least squares:
Concepts, methods and applications (pp. 655e690). Berlin: Springer.
Cohen, Y. A. (1964). The establishment of identity in a social nexus: the special case
of initiation ceremonies and their relation to value and legal systems. American
Anthropologist, 66(3), 529e552.
Correia, A., Moital, M., da Costa, C. F., & Peres, R. (2008). The determinants of
gastronomic tourists satisfaction: a second-order factor analysis. Journal of
Foodservice, 19(3), 164e176.
Cousins, J., OGorman, K. D., & Stierand, M. (2010). Molecular gastronomy: basis for
a new culinary movement or modern day alchemy? International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(3), 399e415.
Cousins, N. (1981). Internship: preparation or hazing? JAMA: Journal of the American
Medical Association, 245(4), 377.
Crawford, N. (1999). Conundrums and confusion in organisations: the etymology of
the word bully. International Journal of Manpower, 20(1/2), 86e94.
Cresswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among ve
approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. London: Sage.
Cullen, J. B., Johnson, J. L., & Sakano, T. (1995). Japanese and local partner
commitment to IJVs: psychological consequences of outcomes and investments
in the IJV relationship. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(1), 91e115.
DCruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2009). Experiencing depersonalised bullying: a study of Indian
call-centre agents. Work Organisation, Labour and Globalisation, 3(1), 26e46.
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the work-
place. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 331e351.
Einarsen, S., & Mikkelsen, E. (2003). Individual effects of exposure to bullying at
work. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional
abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp.
127e144). London: Taylor & Francis.
Einarsen, S., & Raknes, B. (1997). Harassment in the workplace and the victimization
of men. Violence and Victims, 12(3), 247e263.
Einarsen, S., & Skogstad, A. (1996). Bullying at work: epidemiological ndings in
public and private organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 5(2), 185e201.
Feldman, D. C. (1977). The role of initiation activities in socialization. Human
Relations, 30(11), 977e990.
Fine, G. A. (1985). Occupational aesthetics: how trade school students learn to cook.
Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 14(1), 3e31.
Fine, G. A. (1995). Wittgensteins kitchen: sharing meaning in restaurant work.
Theory and Society, 24(2), 245e269.
Fine, G. A. (1996a). Justifying work: occupational rhetorics as resources in restau-
rant kitchens. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 90e115.
Fine, G. A. (1996b). Kitchens: The culture of restaurant work. California: University of
California Press.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,
18(1), 39e50.
Gabriel, Y. (1988). Working lives in catering. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
Gotz, O., Kerstin, L. G., & Krafft, M. (2010). Evaluation of structural equation models
using the partial least squares (PLS) approach. In V. Esposito Vinzi, W. W. Chin,
J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of partial least squares: Concepts,
methods and applications (pp. 691e711). Berlin: Springer.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global
perspective. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Hall, J. A., & Dornan, M. C. (1990). Patient sociodemographic characteristics as
predictors of satisfaction with medical care: a meta-analysis. Social Science &
Medicine, 30(7), 811e818.
Haueter, J. A., Macan, T. H., & Winter, J. (2003). Measurement of newcomer social-
ization: construct validation of a multidimensional scale. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 63(1), 20e39.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares
path modeling in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing,
20, 277e319.
Hoel, H., Cooper, C. L., & Faragher, B. (2001). The experience of bullying in Great
Britain: the impact of organizational status. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 443e465.
Hoel, H., & Einarsen, S. (2003). Violence at work in hotels, catering and tourism.
Unpublished working paper. Geneva: International Labour Ofce.
Hoel, H., Faragher, B., & Cooper, C. L. (2004). Bullying is detrimental to health, but all
bullying behaviours are not necessarily equally damaging. British Journal of
Guidance & Counselling, 32(3), 367e387.
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in
organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121e140.
Hutchinson, J., Lai, F., & Wang, Y. (2009). Understanding the relationships of quality,
value, equity, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions among golf travelers.
Tourism Management, 30(2), 298e308.
Johansson, P. O. (2001). Is there a meaningful denition of the value of a statistical
life? Journal of Health Economics, 20(1), 131e139, [Article].
Johns, N., & Menzel, P. J. (1999). If you cant stand the heat!. Kitchen violence and
culinary art. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 18(2), 99e109.
Johnson, R. (2008). Is it the end of the road for macho chefs? The Sunday Times, .
Josefowitz, N., & Gadon, H. (1989). Hazing: uncovering one of the best-kept secrets
of the workplace. Business Horizons, 32(3), 22e26.
Keating, C. F., Pomerantz, J., Pommer, S. D., Ritt, S. J. H., Miller, L. M., & McCormick, J.
(2005). Going to college and unpacking hazing: a functional approach to
decrypting initiation practices among undergraduates. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research, and Practice, 9, 104e126.
Kidder, J. L. (2006). Its the job that I love: bike messengers and edgework.
Sociological Forum, 21(1), 31e54.
King, A. S. (1997). The crescendo effect in career motivation. Career Development
International, 2(6), 293e301.
Lewis, D., & Gunn, R. (2007). Workplace bullying in the public sector: understanding
the racial dimension. Public Administration, 85(3), 641e665.
Lichtman, S. H. (2009). The power of storytelling. CPA Journal, 79(4), 6e8.
Love, H. (2008). Unraveling the technique of storytelling. Strategic Communication
Management, 12(4), 24e27.
Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2008). Intensive remedial identity work: responses to work-
place bullying trauma and stigmatization. Organization, 15(1), 97e119.
Lutgen-Sandvik, P., Tracy, S. J., & Alberts, J. K. (2007). Burned by bullying in the
American workplace: prevalence, perception, degree and impact. Journal of
Management Studies, 44(6), 837e862.
Martin, E. (2004). Whos kicking whom? Employees orientations to work. Inter-
national Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16(3), 182e188.
Mathias, N., & Teresa, H. R. (2006). A hermeneutic of Amartya Sens concept of
capability. International Journal of Social Economics, 33(10), 710e722, [Article].
Mathisen, G., Einarsen, S., & Mykletun, R. (2008). The occurrences and correlates of
bullying and harassment in the restaurant sector. Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology, 49(1), 59e68.
McCormack, D., Casimir, G., Djurkovic, N., & Yang, L. (2006). The concurrent effects
of workplace bullying, satisfaction with supervisor, and satisfaction with co-
workers on affective commitment among schoolteachers in China. Interna-
tional Journal of Conict Management, 17(4), 316e331.
Middleton, G., & Lafn, T. (2000). Women, kitchens and macho culture: a prelimi-
nary study into womens experiences of bullying and workplace violence in the
contemporary kitchen. Paper presented at The 9th annual CHME hospitality
research conference.
 M. Alexander et al. / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 1245e1255
Mikkelsen, E. G., & Einarsen, S. (2001). Bullying in Danish work-life: prevalence and
health correlates. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4),
393e413.
Munthe, E. (1989). Bullying in Scandinavia. In E. Roland, & E. Munthe (Eds.),
Bullying: An international perspective, Vol. 66e78. London: David Fulton
Publishers.
Murray-Gibbons, R., & Gibbons, C. (2007). Occupational stress in the chef profes-
sion. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 19(1),
32e42.
OGorman, K. D., & Gillespie, C. H. (2010). The mythological power of hospitality
leaders? A hermeneutical investigation of their reliance on storytelling. Inter-
national Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(5), 659e680.
OReilly, C. A., III, Caldwell, D. F., & Barnett, W. P. (1989). Work group demography,
social integration, and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(1), 21e37.
Panyik, E., Costa, C., & Rtz, T. (2011). Implementing integrated rural tourism: an
event-based approach. Tourism Management, 32(6), 1352e1363.
Park, M. S., & Kayatekin, S. A. (2000). McCloskey, economics as conversation, and
Sprachethik. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 24(5), 565e580.
Parzefall, M. R., & Salin, D. M. (2010). Perceptions of and reactions to workplace
bullying: a social exchange perspective. Human Relations, 63(6), 761e780.
Pershing, J. L. (2006). Men and womens experiences with hazing in a male-
dominated elite military institution. Men and Masculinities, 8(4), 470.
Peter, J. P. (1981). Construct validity: a review of basic issues and marketing prac-
tices. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 133e145.
Pierre-White, M., & Steen, J. (2007). The devil in the kitchen: Sex, pain, madness, and
the making of a great Chef. London: Orion.
Pike, S., Murdy, S., & Lings, I. (2011). Visitor relationship orientation of destination
marketing organisations. Journal of Travel Research, 50(4), 443e453.
Porter, L. W., & Smith, F. J. (1970). The etiology of organizational commitment.
Unpublished paper. Irvine: University of California.
Pratten, J. D. (2003a). The training and retention of chefs. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 15(4), 237e242.
Pratten, J. D. (2003b). What makes a great chef? British Food Journal, 105(7),
454e459.
Pratten, J. D., & OLeary, B. (2007). Addressing the causes of chef shortages in the UK.
Journal of European Industrial Training, 31(1), 68e78.
Quine, L. (1999). Workplace bullying in NHS community trust: staff questionnaire
survey. BMJ, 318(7178), 228.
Quine, L. (2001). Workplace bullying in nurses. Journal of Health Psychology, 6(1), 73.
Reichers, A. E. (1987). An interactionist perspective on newcomer socialization
rates. Academy of Management Review, 12(2), 278e287.
Reinatz, W., Haenlein, M., & Henseler, J. (2009). An empirical comparison of the
efcacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM. International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 26, 332e344.
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. M. (2005). SmartPLS 2.0. From. http://www.
smartpls.de/forum/.
Robinson, J. P. (1991). Criteria for scale selection and evaluation in measures of
personality and social psychological attitudes. New York: Academic Press.
Robinson, R. N. S., & Barron, P. E. (2007). Developing a framework for understanding
the impact of deskilling and standardisation on the turnover and attrition of
chefs. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26(4), 913e926.
Robinson, R. N. S., & Beesley, L. G. (2009). Linkages between creativity and intention
to quit: an occupational study of chefs. Tourism Management, 31(6), 765e776.
1255
Rose, M. (2003). Good deal, bad deal? Job satisfaction in occupations. Work,
Employment & Society, 17(3), 503.
Rowley, G., & Purcell, K. (2001). As cooks go, she went: is labour churn inevitable?
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 20(2), 163e185.
Salin, D. (2003). Ways of explaining workplace bullying: a review of enabling,
motivating and precipitating structures and processes in the work environ-
ment. Human Relations, 56(10), 1213e1232.
Schappe, S. P. (1998). The inuence of job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
and fairness perceptions on organizational citizenship behavior. The Journal of
Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 132(3), 277e290.
Schwartz, G., & Merten, D. (1968). Social identity and expressive symbols: the
meaning of an initiation ritual. American Anthropologist, 70(6), 1117e1131.
Simmons, A. (2006). The story factor. Cambridge, MA, USA: Perseus Books.
Smith, P. K., Singer, M., Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. (2003). Victimization in the school and
the workplace: are there any links? British Journal of Psychology, 94(2), 175e188.
Spector, P. E. (1985). Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: development
of the job satisfaction survey. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13(6),
693e713.
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, cause, and conse-
quences. Sage Publications, Inc.
SueEllen, P. (2006). Stories as motivators. Nursing Economics, 24(3), 166.
Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston:
Pearson Education.
Takaki, J., Tsutsumi, A., Fujii, Y., Taniguchi, T., Hirokawa, K., Hibino, Y., et al. (2009).
Assessment of workplace bullying and harassment: reliability and validity of
a Japanese version of the negative acts questionnaire. Journal of Occupational
Health, 911190107.
Taylor, D. (1977). Fortune, fame and folly: Caterer and hotelkeeper. London: Reed
Publishing.
Taylor, D. (1996). Cesar Ritz and Auguste Escofer vs the Savoy Hotel Company.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 15(1), 29e39.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research. London:
Sage.
Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V. E., Chatelin, Y. M., & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS path modeling.
Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 48(1), 159e205.
Thompson, W. E. (1983). Hanging tongues: a sociological encounter with the
assembly line. Qualitative Sociology, 6(3), 215e237.
Turkewitz, L. J., & Faust, D. C. (1981). Internship: physicians respond to Norman
Cousins. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 246(19), 2141e2143.
Wither, J. K. (2004). Battling bullying in the British Army 1987e2004. The Journal of
Power Institutions in Post-Soviet Societies, 1(1), Retrieved from. http://www.
pipss.org/index46.html.
Wycherley, I. (2005). Tales for change: using storytelling to develop people and
organisations/stories trainers tell: 55 ready-to-use stories to make training
stick/death by meeting: a leadership fable. Personnel Review, 34(2), 262e267,
[Book review].
Yang, J. T. (2008). Effect of newcomer socialisation on organisational commitment,
job satisfaction, and turnover intention in the hotel industry. The Service
Industries Journal, 28(4), 429e443.
Zauhar, J. (2004). Historical perspectives of sports tourism. Journal of Sport &
Tourism, 9(1), 5e101.
Zoja, L. (2000). Drugs, addiction. Initiation: The modern search for ritual. Daimon
Verlag.